Rejected thesis
Volatility squeeze
Thesis (rejected): Names with compressed realised volatility, tight Bollinger bands and a contracted 60-day range are "wound springs" that break out with elevated forward volatility.
Code: research/squeeze_validate.py
Report: research/squeeze_report.json (n=17,774)
Why it failed: Tighter compression predicts less forward volatility, not more. The relationship is monotonic and the wrong sign — the super-tight bucket (realised vol < 10%) moves only ~2.4 % over 20 days vs the borderline bucket (vol 18-22 %) at ~5.8 %. The "wound spring releases" intuition is the opposite of what the data shows on a 20-day horizon. Volatility is autocorrelated; low vol predicts more low vol.
Verdict: Removed from the live watch-list 2026-05. Long-volatility plays (straddles, strangles) on these names would systematically bleed.
| Sample | 17,774 |
|---|---|
| Validator | research/squeeze_validate.py |
| Verdict | Rejected |
Every result here is reproducible from the script named above. Reports are in the repository.
- Pre-FOMC drift
- Uptrend pullback
- Momentum continuation
- Industry-relative momentum (at 4-week lookback)
- Earnings-reaction reversal (anti-PEAD)
- Beat-persistence pre-earnings drift
- Sector ETF mean-reversion
- 52-week-high breakout
- Volume accumulation (above-200DMA +...
- Cross-sector momentum
- Analyst-upgrade cluster
- PEAD × sector tailwind (combination)